The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-09-18
TEE GREATEST poLr11cAz QUESTION

IhB 6hEAIhST PObA1hCAL VUhbIIOM
Justice Brsaiey's Opipisu On Federal Powers
The decision Of Justice Bradley on the con.
stitutionality Of the law OF Congress author
ising the construction Of o bridge across Staten
Island Sound. rendered in the United States
Circuit Court at Trenton. N. j., has boon gen-
orally commended. The SUN, In common with
other journals. was inclined TO join In tho ap-
proval on tho telographic summary OF this de-
cision as first received But since the receipt
OF the full text tho views originally expressed
require some qualification. The opinion OF
Justice Bradley deserves commentator 80 far
as II 10 consistent with oil past decisions OF the
Supreme Court, which has uniformly hold that
the power Of Congress over navigable streams
Is absolute and beyond State Interference.
But so far as II In extra-judicial and attempts
to settle in advance constitutional questions
not involved In the controversy, It Is not 80
worthy of communication.
Tho case Ia worry simple and can DO easily
understood. The statos Of New York and New
Jersey have general railroad laws which por-
NIT the construction Of bridges ut any point
within their jurisdiction. A company organ
lied In Now Jersey could cross any Of It's riv-
ers, at any place selected by the engineer, sub
ject only to the assent OF the Riparian Com
missioners. Two companies also. one organ
lied under the laws OF New York and the other
under tho laws OF New Jersey. could have met
in tho middle Of Staten Island Sound without
any special enabling act from tho Legislature
Of either stnte. But against Federal control
over navigablo streams tho authority Of the
States was not sufficient Hence tho consent
OF Congress was sought and this consent once
given neither State could Interfere to prevent
the construction of tho bridge under It's own
laws.
But tho case seems to have bcen little COM
plicated by the action OF New Jersey. Her
Legislature had passed q law supplementary
to her general law forbidding the construction
OF bridges across navigable streams without
the consent Of the State. But this was mat
ter Of no moment. Such n law. like all State
laws affecting navigation, could be operative
only while the authority OF Congress lay DOR
mant. 1t has been universally held by the Su-
preme Court that Congress holds the right OF
eminent domain ovor all navigable streams,
and over all streams which 1t may DO thought
expedient to make navigable. and int TINS
right necessarily covers enough OF the adjacent er
that may be desired in the interest Of com;
merce. whether such work be In the form OF
FSs% %hy cond NOT Justice Bradley have sim
ply said so. and let the law take Its course
BY 81 us
to think II necessary to give an enlarged IN.
terpretation to Federal powers. md Justice
vocates Of their extension. Hence he was not
satisfied 70 render q decision which would i
must give one that would cover also other cases
that might be Sy The p na
the fsht 70 TN
Of q bridge across a navigable stream, whether
boundary channel or not. but that In the OK
eeSlsn 81 between States It Would have the
power to grant charters entailing the right t9
condemn lands, and to perform other acts OF
Justice Bradley cannot expect to have such
opinion pass T9oF Se L
doris to Withhold from Congress the right Of
eaeeps upon wasers Not only does
It designate the territory over which Congress
pTevdes tSs Of
shall DO necessary for the Federal occupation
Of the territory necessary for forts arsenais .
nna doieneo e's The r"%srs Of tic
tuition wero too clear headed to provide for the
eeesri5 e Gt aG 5st Il Would Impossible
! two parties to hold the right OF eminent DO
the territory eas Se
S Dc ma ' The right Of eminent domain Is
il in Congress. then local self-g3vernment is q
privilege and not Q right II will not be neees-
m men does not conform to tho idea most com
monty hold, and that 4 IS not justified BY his us
GS s d hsa s0 1w Hh ss4 Of at
time Of the adoption Of the Constitution; and
it was chief among those rights which, not be-
TO B hs Cites tho that
plstsa the aRS Or
thoroughfare extending from the Potomac to
bsr snh a w Rs Be- ws ssa nss sRe shs
| It was surrendered to the States. This Is only
o proof that Congress In those days was more
i ESss F ass
also cites the fact that Congress-, at moro no:
IN ee1
sion Of the Pacific railways; But we 90 &c not 20
an act Of to Learn what VIA Il anae
offer an act 81 Congress n proof that :, his
b be Observed however, Throughout the. decision
Of Justice Bradley. that he reiers oitener Ito to
and sh snd ID
T$e psosssoss; q H. Hudson
Tor ieGa depcs. q Course they could nGt ebtsin
having S been defeated in their application they
| could 90 to Congress. and under this decision
mould aaSs IN t
est OF Interstate commerce. There will be no
b that nso ss6 New sy Yolt VIII as
To tRR now that It would We Be- impossible.
There is no doubt that Justice Bradley Is en-
| tirely right In his conclusions ON the main ain
construction Of o bridge across a navigable
stream Is beyond question. But that Is no
reason Why Federal Justice should point POI TO
Constitutional In Qualification Of a decision
which Is solid and good upon Quite other
grounds. WILLIAM NELSON BLACK.
walt whitnaa to his EnEllsh Friends.
Prom ne Pail Hdl Gazette